Not just children, but family. I've done a lot of reading on the subject, and for the most part I find that the original definitions of marriage say the same basic thing.
I have been trying to find the origins of marriage, but it is pretty hard. One of the earliest definitions I can find states that it was what happened when a man and woman mated, and the man stayed with the woman after the child was born and assisted in raising the child. I have been trying to find the origins of marriage, but it is pretty hard. One of the earliest definitions I can find states that it was what happened when a man and woman mated, and the man stayed with the woman after the child was born and assisted in raising the child. I think marriage started out as one of two things, A way to get children out on their own, and a way to ensure a child is raised by two parents. I realize that problems with individuals occur, and that in general neither of these always ends in a desirable solution, however that is where it seemed to start. Of all the animals that practice monogamy, I haven't seen any that have same sex monogamy. I've seen groups like the Bonobo Chimp that engage in same gender sex act, but they don't seem to be monogamous, they are pretty horny and don't seem to care. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:40 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Being Gay: Nature or Nurture? > > > However, my problem with gay marriage has to do with children. I think > > marriage should be based on family, and the desire for children. > > ummm... Gay couples can 'desire' to have children. Gay couples can > _*have*_ children (through adoption, through previous marriages, > through in-vitro fertilization, through surrogacy). Gay couples can > desire to have no children. > > Straight married couples can desire to have children. Straight married > couples can _*have*_ children (through adoption, through previous > marriages, through in-vitro fertilization, through surrogacy). > Straight married couples can also be _*unable*_ to have children via > "natural" means. Straight married couples can desire to have _*NO*_ > children! > > What does children or the desire to produce/care for/nurture them have > to do with marriage? > > Does the mere fact that a "straight" married couple who desire to > _*NOT*_ have children _*COULD*_ insert tab "P" into slot "V" and > produce offspring make the marriage valid? > > Does the inability to have children invalidate a marriage in your > eyes? Your argument suggests that it does. > > If this is the case then in your world-view is every marriage that > does not produce children invalid? Regardless of circumstance or > desire? > > > -- > will > > "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; > and that would just be unacceptable." > - Carrie Fisher > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199810 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
